I would respect this argument if the United States was actually "altruistic" when it came to "preventing violence". We pick and choose where we want to "prevent violence" based on whether or not it serves our interests. There are numerous places throughout the world (mostly Africa) where people are being killed by dictators or military regimes for little to no reason, but we don't do shit about it. We're only concerned about "keeping the peace" (lol) in places where there is oil or other financial incentives.
Ummmm....
Somalia early 1990s directly with combat troops Somalia in the 2000s with large amounts of money paid to Kenya and Ethiopia and the African Union, and commando raids and airstrikes There would be no independent South Sudan and Darfur would be far worse if George W. Bush and Europe hadn't worked for five years to break down Khartoum's resistance The Balkans in the late 1990s
It's also unfair and wrong to say "Oh well if there is any way to plausibly say that we only do it for 'incentives' that I find wrong that means it doesn't count." That's cool but in the real world people who would be dead otherwise are an argument to the irrelevancy of that themselves just by still existing.
So no, the facts don't fit with your angry, ill-informed opinion.
On January 04 2012 03:51 bOneSeven wrote: If Obama gets elected again .. this would mean that the american people are suffering of amnezia , everything he has said he will do , he did not do ( I know some things that he promised were impossible ultimately because he alone can't change that much , but in some cases he could have intervened and made change for the best , passing NDAA is a strong example of it ) .
I'm not particularly concerned about Obama winning reelection. All signs are pointing towards a Jimmy Carter-type loss and an absolute disaster for democrats in the House and Senate races. Obama's numbers have been consistently low and the economy isn't going to improve any time soon to give him a significant bump. Hell, just look at all of the democratic politicians that have recently announced that they're not seeking reelection, the latest being Barney Frank and Ben Nelson. They know what's coming, even if they won't publicly admit it (not that I would admit it if I were in their shoes).
What do Republicans really have to offer that Obama doesn't? I know that despite everything Obama has done in his presidency, myself and everyone else I know who leans left still plan to vote for him as opposed to any of the Republican nominees. Obama is still someone easily preferred by people from the left.
On January 04 2012 03:51 bOneSeven wrote: If Obama gets elected again .. this would mean that the american people are suffering of amnezia , everything he has said he will do , he did not do ( I know some things that he promised were impossible ultimately because he alone can't change that much , but in some cases he could have intervened and made change for the best , passing NDAA is a strong example of it ) .
I'm not particularly concerned about Obama winning reelection. All signs are pointing towards a Jimmy Carter-type loss and an absolute disaster for democrats in the House and Senate races. Obama's numbers have been consistently low and the economy isn't going to improve any time soon to give him a significant bump. Hell, just look at all of the democratic politicians that have recently announced that they're not seeking reelection, the latest being Barney Frank and Ben Nelson. They know what's coming, even if they won't publicly admit it (not that I would admit it if I were in their shoes).
It's going to depend entirely on who the republicans nominate and how the US economy develops over the coming 8 months. Obama's favourables are not very high as it is, but pretty much every single republican nominee has terrible favourables also. It's early to link to general election polling, but its interesting nonetheless:
What striking about those polls is the moment that an actual candidate gets named (compared to a generic republican), their chances plummet. This holds especially true for Gingrich, Perry, Bachman, Huntsman and Sanctorum. For them you can explain it partially by them being unknown (which I'd argue for sanctorum at least, he's way underpolled in those results, a values republican still has a good shot in a presidential), but even Paul and Romney suffer compared to a 'generic republican' and both of them are established national presences. All these candidates have favorables as bad, if not worse, then Obama does.
You also can't disregard the internal split inside the republican party. Polling of Republican voters finds only one or two acceptable nominees ( Couple of polls: Gallup, CNN), with it being Romney (and Gingrich before he flamed out). If it turns out to be Romney in the end, which I personally deem very likely, I can see him having troubles in the general with energizing the evangelical part of the republican party, as well as the tea party side, not to mention that a 3rd candidate from either of those groups à la Perot would guarantee Obama the election.
I'd still put my money on Obama for now. His political operation 4 years ago was impressive, and, yes, he is far less popular then he was, but at this point in time I'd say it's still more then enough for a solid electoral college win.
I would respect this argument if the United States was actually "altruistic" when it came to "preventing violence". We pick and choose where we want to "prevent violence" based on whether or not it serves our interests. There are numerous places throughout the world (mostly Africa) where people are being killed by dictators or military regimes for little to no reason, but we don't do shit about it. We're only concerned about "keeping the peace" (lol) in places where there is oil or other financial incentives.
Ummmm....
Somalia early 1990s directly with combat troops Somalia in the 2000s with large amounts of money paid to Kenya and Ethiopia and the African Union, and commando raids and airstrikes There would be no independent South Sudan and Darfur would be far worse if George W. Bush and Europe hadn't worked for five years to break down Khartoum's resistance The Balkans in the late 1990s
It's also unfair and wrong to say "Oh well if there is any way to plausibly say that we only do it for 'incentives' that I find wrong that means it doesn't count." That's cool but in the real world people who would be dead otherwise are an argument to the irrelevancy of that themselves just by still existing.
So no, the facts don't fit with your angry, ill-informed opinion.
Somalia in the early 1990's I agree, Balkans in the 1990s too, Somalia in the 2000s was as much about fighting terrorism as it was about humanitarian goals, and the only reason that the US allowed Darfur to happen was that there was a friendly dictatorship sitting in Khartoum that was willing to provide intelligence on Al-Quaida without sticking too much to the rules of the game. Darfur was worse because of US inaction, and when they finally decided to act it was way too late.
I agree with the point you are making, in the end all that matters is lives saved, but all interventions have at least public diplomacy goals as a part of the plan.
On January 04 2012 03:51 bOneSeven wrote: If Obama gets elected again .. this would mean that the american people are suffering of amnezia , everything he has said he will do , he did not do ( I know some things that he promised were impossible ultimately because he alone can't change that much , but in some cases he could have intervened and made change for the best , passing NDAA is a strong example of it ) .
I'm not particularly concerned about Obama winning reelection. All signs are pointing towards a Jimmy Carter-type loss and an absolute disaster for democrats in the House and Senate races. Obama's numbers have been consistently low and the economy isn't going to improve any time soon to give him a significant bump. Hell, just look at all of the democratic politicians that have recently announced that they're not seeking reelection, the latest being Barney Frank and Ben Nelson. They know what's coming, even if they won't publicly admit it (not that I would admit it if I were in their shoes).
What do Republicans really have to offer that Obama doesn't? I know that despite everything Obama has done in his presidency, myself and everyone else I know who leans left still plan to vote for him as opposed to any of the Republican nominees. Obama is still someone easily preferred by people from the left.
Someone who isn't clearly incompetent and in over his head? Look, I'm not expecting everyone to abandon Obama. He's still basically guaranteed to get 40-45% of the popular vote because there are so many people who won't consider a republican just as there so many people who won't consider a democrat. Nonetheless, people more in the middle have seen what Obama has to offer (Obamacare, stimulus package, etc) and they're not impressed. It's not so much that they like what republican alternatives have to offer so much as they will take pretty much anything over what they have seen over the past three years from Obama and the democrats.
On January 04 2012 03:51 bOneSeven wrote: If Obama gets elected again .. this would mean that the american people are suffering of amnezia , everything he has said he will do , he did not do ( I know some things that he promised were impossible ultimately because he alone can't change that much , but in some cases he could have intervened and made change for the best , passing NDAA is a strong example of it ) .
I'm not particularly concerned about Obama winning reelection. All signs are pointing towards a Jimmy Carter-type loss and an absolute disaster for democrats in the House and Senate races. Obama's numbers have been consistently low and the economy isn't going to improve any time soon to give him a significant bump. Hell, just look at all of the democratic politicians that have recently announced that they're not seeking reelection, the latest being Barney Frank and Ben Nelson. They know what's coming, even if they won't publicly admit it (not that I would admit it if I were in their shoes).
The biggest problem Republicans have is that Obama's approval rating has actually been going up over the last four months, while the republican primaries, and the in-party fighting has only brought out things for Obama to raise funds by mentioning, as well as hurting the reputations of whoever the eventual nominee is. Obama also has the advantage of what will most likely be 90%+ of the African American vote in this country, and over two-thirds of the Hispanic vote, not to mention the votes of diehard liberals who won't even consider a republican, even Ron Paul.
Under Obama's presidency we left Iraq (the reason why that happened isn't really important oddly, but truly enough) which will boost his foreign policy credentials for liberals and people in the middle, while Ron Paul talking about things such as ending capital gains taxes, a gold standard, or shutting down branches of the government will scare away liberals in droves.
The African American vote barely matters because it's a relatively small part of the population and they tend not to vote anyway. The Latino vote is a larger, long term problem for the republicans, particularly as the Latino population continues to grow. However, what's going relatively unnoticed by a lot of people is how quickly democrats are losing white voters. Here's a semi-recent NY Time article that's relevant: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/
For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.
All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.
The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.
On January 04 2012 03:51 bOneSeven wrote: If Obama gets elected again .. this would mean that the american people are suffering of amnezia , everything he has said he will do , he did not do ( I know some things that he promised were impossible ultimately because he alone can't change that much , but in some cases he could have intervened and made change for the best , passing NDAA is a strong example of it ) .
I'm not particularly concerned about Obama winning reelection. All signs are pointing towards a Jimmy Carter-type loss and an absolute disaster for democrats in the House and Senate races. Obama's numbers have been consistently low and the economy isn't going to improve any time soon to give him a significant bump. Hell, just look at all of the democratic politicians that have recently announced that they're not seeking reelection, the latest being Barney Frank and Ben Nelson. They know what's coming, even if they won't publicly admit it (not that I would admit it if I were in their shoes).
What do Republicans really have to offer that Obama doesn't? I know that despite everything Obama has done in his presidency, myself and everyone else I know who leans left still plan to vote for him as opposed to any of the Republican nominees. Obama is still someone easily preferred by people from the left.
Someone who isn't clearly incompetent and in over his head? Look, I'm not expecting everyone to abandon Obama. He's still basically guaranteed to get 40-45% of the popular vote because there are so many people who won't consider a republican just as there so many people who won't consider a democrat. Nonetheless, people more in the middle have seen what Obama has to offer (Obamacare, stimulus package, etc) and they're not impressed. It's not so much that they like what republican alternatives have to offer so much as they will take pretty much anything over what they have seen over the past three years from Obama and the democrats.
I don't get that feeling and I don't think there is anything he could have done to make things any better as long as Republicans had so much control of representatives. The economy was in shit shape before he got there and he's not to blame for the situation we're in. I think the only people who will switch from Obama in 2008 to 2012 are the ones who are overreacting to the world not being as they'd like it to be.
If you look at current polls though, Obama is really only having problems in head to head polling at winning the 65+ vote. There might be a 5-10% (ie 45% dem to 55% republican) differential in the white vote in favor of the republican nominee, but the non-white differential is usually around 50% (ie 20% republican to 75% dem) in favor of Obama. Like you said, it's a definite long-term concern for republicans, one that they don't even seem to be addressing.
On January 04 2012 03:51 bOneSeven wrote: If Obama gets elected again .. this would mean that the american people are suffering of amnezia , everything he has said he will do , he did not do ( I know some things that he promised were impossible ultimately because he alone can't change that much , but in some cases he could have intervened and made change for the best , passing NDAA is a strong example of it ) .
I'm not particularly concerned about Obama winning reelection. All signs are pointing towards a Jimmy Carter-type loss and an absolute disaster for democrats in the House and Senate races. Obama's numbers have been consistently low and the economy isn't going to improve any time soon to give him a significant bump. Hell, just look at all of the democratic politicians that have recently announced that they're not seeking reelection, the latest being Barney Frank and Ben Nelson. They know what's coming, even if they won't publicly admit it (not that I would admit it if I were in their shoes).
What do Republicans really have to offer that Obama doesn't? I know that despite everything Obama has done in his presidency, myself and everyone else I know who leans left still plan to vote for him as opposed to any of the Republican nominees. Obama is still someone easily preferred by people from the left.
Someone who isn't clearly incompetent and in over his head? Look, I'm not expecting everyone to abandon Obama. He's still basically guaranteed to get 40-45% of the popular vote because there are so many people who won't consider a republican just as there so many people who won't consider a democrat. Nonetheless, people more in the middle have seen what Obama has to offer (Obamacare, stimulus package, etc) and they're not impressed. It's not so much that they like what republican alternatives have to offer so much as they will take pretty much anything over what they have seen over the past three years from Obama and the democrats.
I don't get that feeling and I don't think there is anything he could have done to make things any better as long as Republicans had so much control of representatives. The economy was in shit shape before he got there and he's not to blame for the situation we're in. I think the only people who will switch from Obama in 2008 to 2012 are the ones who are overreacting to the world not being as they'd like it to be.
If Obama had done nothing over the past three years, then I think you'd be right. However, Obama now has a substantial record of performance and people have had a good look at how he operates and what he wants to get done. I posit to you that the 2010 elections were about more than just people "overreacting to the world not being as they'd like it to be." 2012 is going to be same deal.
I would respect this argument if the United States was actually "altruistic" when it came to "preventing violence". We pick and choose where we want to "prevent violence" based on whether or not it serves our interests. There are numerous places throughout the world (mostly Africa) where people are being killed by dictators or military regimes for little to no reason, but we don't do shit about it. We're only concerned about "keeping the peace" (lol) in places where there is oil or other financial incentives.
Ummmm....
Somalia early 1990s directly with combat troops Somalia in the 2000s with large amounts of money paid to Kenya and Ethiopia and the African Union, and commando raids and airstrikes There would be no independent South Sudan and Darfur would be far worse if George W. Bush and Europe hadn't worked for five years to break down Khartoum's resistance The Balkans in the late 1990s
It's also unfair and wrong to say "Oh well if there is any way to plausibly say that we only do it for 'incentives' that I find wrong that means it doesn't count." That's cool but in the real world people who would be dead otherwise are an argument to the irrelevancy of that themselves just by still existing.
So no, the facts don't fit with your angry, ill-informed opinion.
Actually, it is by now established fairly well in the political science field humanitarian intervention coincides with political or physical resource benefit.
African intervention historically hasn't been some innocent humanitarian mission, more proxy warfare. A good journal just to start is "Humanitarian Intervention, Altruism, and the Limits of Casuistry".
I guess since I have to be on topic for something, there was a post saying an Obama re-election would be a future disaster with the loss of the senate too. I agree, it will be rough waters for Obama after re-election for maybe two years, after which he will likely regain control of both and House and Senate in his waning years of presidency as the economy stabilizes.
I would respect this argument if the United States was actually "altruistic" when it came to "preventing violence". We pick and choose where we want to "prevent violence" based on whether or not it serves our interests. There are numerous places throughout the world (mostly Africa) where people are being killed by dictators or military regimes for little to no reason, but we don't do shit about it. We're only concerned about "keeping the peace" (lol) in places where there is oil or other financial incentives.
Ummmm....
Somalia early 1990s directly with combat troops Somalia in the 2000s with large amounts of money paid to Kenya and Ethiopia and the African Union, and commando raids and airstrikes There would be no independent South Sudan and Darfur would be far worse if George W. Bush and Europe hadn't worked for five years to break down Khartoum's resistance The Balkans in the late 1990s
It's also unfair and wrong to say "Oh well if there is any way to plausibly say that we only do it for 'incentives' that I find wrong that means it doesn't count." That's cool but in the real world people who would be dead otherwise are an argument to the irrelevancy of that themselves just by still existing.
So no, the facts don't fit with your angry, ill-informed opinion.
What led you to believe that my post was angry? There is nothing in the quoted post that betrays any amount of anger. I was merely stating an opinion, and I argue that it is NOT ill informed. My point still stands that there are numerous civil rights and humanity violations that happen world wide because it doesn't serve our financial or political interests (Saudi Arabia, for instance) to prevent them.
Additionally, until you have lost someone close to you in our most recent stretch of war in the Middle East, don't talk like you know about "people who would be dead otherwise". I apologize for not caring about the "democracy" of other nations if the cost is losing the lives of the people im close to.
Again, most people pretend to care about the well-being of other nations but never actually contribute anything other than a holier-than-thou attitude. Tell me, how much have you actually contributed to the well-being of others?
On January 03 2012 11:13 Derez wrote: Sentences like that are meaningless, and I personally can't think of a single field of (serious) economics that only considers the short term. Out of that sentence no prescriptions for action are derived and no policies can be inferred, they all follow out of the theoretical assumptions underlying the various chapters.
Ron Paul's economic policy isn't common sense. It's a simplistic view, best summarized as: markets = good, which unsurprisingly leads him to conclude that we need more markets. What's much more interesting, but what he doesn't speak to, is why he believes markets work. He just states that they do.
I'm much more interested in candidates that have a view of the economy that isn't completely predetermined and that actually put some thought into their economic policy. Romney is an idiot, but at least he's wise enough to be pragmatic about economic choices.
I sort of feel sorry for the republican party in general tho, there's an obvious split between the ron paul tea-partiers, the sanctorum social conservatives and the romney traditionalists. None of the candidates seem to have the cross-over appeal to do well in a general, both within and outside the republican party.
So being pro market and against most interventions makes you non pragmatic and not putting any thought into an economic policy ? That's an interesting bias right there. But even so, implementing pro market views isn't simple in any country nowadays, because you need a planned transitional period in order to gradually remove people's dependence on certain services, give them time to readjust etc. Apparently Ron Paul has this kind of plan, I don't know if it's any good though.
Who actually considers what Obama said he wants to do ? What he has done should be the only reason why he should be re-elected , and where I come for I won't say anything because I allways get the information of what damage he has done so my words are tainted by preset ideology , however it is certain that what he says he wants to do means absolutely nothing, having a record of braking his promises constantly.
On January 04 2012 05:56 bOneSeven wrote: Who actually considers what Obama said he wants to do ? What he has done should be the only reason why he should be re-elected , and where I come for I won't say anything because I allways get the information of what damage he has done so my words are tainted by preset ideology , however it is certain that what he says he wants to do means absolutely nothing, having a record of braking his promises constantly.
If your goal for any politician (even Ron Paul) is for them to keep their promises, you need to rethink your mindset about politics. It's not that they all outright lie, it's that available information and responsibilities change once you're in office.
I personally think the country would run smoother if the team liquid community acted as its Congress. Sensible people speaking from logic instead of backing their high paying constituents.
On January 04 2012 05:56 bOneSeven wrote: Who actually considers what Obama said he wants to do ? What he has done should be the only reason why he should be re-elected , and where I come for I won't say anything because I allways get the information of what damage he has done so my words are tainted by preset ideology , however it is certain that what he says he wants to do means absolutely nothing, having a record of braking his promises constantly.
If your goal for any politician (even Ron Paul) is for them to keep their promises, you need to rethink your mindset about politics. It's not that they all outright lie, it's that available information and responsibilities change once you're in office.
Obama said he will denie the NDAA , he could have denied it but he hasn't , that is a strong example oh what I'm saying . I said I understand politicians can't keep all their promises , I've said he didn't respect ANY major promise . Obama is a very intelligent person but his interest do not represent the people I believe .. Well , the people without influence .
On January 04 2012 05:56 bOneSeven wrote: Who actually considers what Obama said he wants to do ? What he has done should be the only reason why he should be re-elected , and where I come for I won't say anything because I allways get the information of what damage he has done so my words are tainted by preset ideology , however it is certain that what he says he wants to do means absolutely nothing, having a record of braking his promises constantly.
I semi-disagree with your point. Most of Obama's pre-presidential promises amounted to nothing more than base rhetoric ("hope and change"). What he was saying was garbage then just as it is obvious that it was garbage now. Anyone who wasn't caught up in the hype knew as such. If you look at Obama's domestic agenda and initiatives, I think he has done his best to keep his promises and has largely fulfilled them. He came as advertised -- a left-wing advocate. On the other hand, Obama has serially broken all sorts of pledges that he made concerning foreign policy or defense issues, the most notorious of these broken promises being Gitmo.
In case you Ron Paul supporters need a bigger hard-on for the guy, go check out the informal poll that Drudge is hosting. Ron Paul is scoring huge. (www.drudgereport.com)
On January 04 2012 05:56 bOneSeven wrote: Who actually considers what Obama said he wants to do ? What he has done should be the only reason why he should be re-elected , and where I come for I won't say anything because I allways get the information of what damage he has done so my words are tainted by preset ideology , however it is certain that what he says he wants to do means absolutely nothing, having a record of braking his promises constantly.
If your goal for any politician (even Ron Paul) is for them to keep their promises, you need to rethink your mindset about politics. It's not that they all outright lie, it's that available information and responsibilities change once you're in office.
Obama said he will denie the NDAA , he could have denied it but he hasn't , that is a strong example oh what I'm saying . I said I understand politicians can't keep all their promises , I've said he didn't respect ANY major promise . Obama is a very intelligent person but his interest do not represent the people I believe .. Well , the people without influence .
EPT
